> Was just trying to get more info from large networks about whether how some
> of the things that make theoretical logical sense actually work out in
> practice that way e.g. whether fixed header size and the fewer headers
> required to decode to read an IPv6 packet (with respect to IPv4) really m
On 1/19/2014 7:00 AM, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> extension headers are a poor idea because it's troublesome to process them
>> on cheap hardware.
>
> Have you found them to be more troublesome to process than IPv4 options
> are/were?
at what
Thank you for your responses Saku,
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
>
> 2. lack of checksum
>- in some instances packet corruption maybe impossible to detect in
> network
>
How prevalent is this problem? There might be not point fixing a problem
with a 0.2% probability o
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> extension headers are a poor idea because it's troublesome to process them
> on cheap hardware.
>
Have you found them to be more troublesome to process than IPv4 options
are/were?
> Because of this, packets with any sort of extension
>
Thank you all for your insightful responses (please keep them coming).
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> It could (as a function of raw traffic).
>
> What's the concern, unless we misunderstand?
>
Was just trying to get more info from large networks about whether how some
of
Hello Leo,
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:18:13 -0600
Leo Bicknell wrote:
> This whole problem smacks to me of exchange points that are "too big to
> fail". Since some of these exchanges are so big, everyone else must bend to
> their needs. I think the world would be a better place if some of these
On 1/18/14, 10:30 AM, John van Oppen wrote:
> This is exactly what pushed us into 6PE... it was the only way to make
> performance similar to v4 from a routing standpoint.
This statement is a bit facile... What platform are you referring to?
> John @ AS11404
>
>
signature.asc
Description
This is exactly what pushed us into 6PE... it was the only way to make
performance similar to v4 from a routing standpoint.
John @ AS11404
On Saturday, January 18, 2014 06:07:59 PM Mukom Akong T.
wrote:
> Would a routing device process (while forwarding for
> example) more IPv6 packets than IPv4?
It could (as a function of raw traffic).
What's the concern, unless we misunderstand?
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digi
On Saturday, January 18, 2014 06:09:58 AM Mukom Akong T.
wrote:
> Does anyone have any experiences or insights to share on
> how more (or less) efficient routing is with IPv6? Any
> specific thoughts with respect to how the following
> characteristics help or not with routing efficiency? -
> fix
On 18 Jan 2014 09:42, wrote:
>
>
> please define "efficient" in this context.
Would a routing device process (while forwarding for example) more IPv6
packets than IPv4?
Not a dictionary definition
>
> /bill
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 08:09:58AM +0400, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
> > Hello folks,
>
On (2014-01-18 12:22 +), Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 18/01/2014 04:09, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
> > Does anyone have any experiences or insights to share on how more (or
> > less) efficient routing is with IPv6? Any specific thoughts with respect to
> > how the following characteristics help or no
On 18/01/2014 04:09, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
> Does anyone have any experiences or insights to share on how more (or
> less) efficient routing is with IPv6? Any specific thoughts with respect to
> how the following characteristics help or not with routing efficiency?
> - fixed header size
> - Extens
* Patrick W. Gilmore:
> NEVER EVER EVER put an IX prefix into BGP, IGP, or even static
> route. An IXP LAN should not be reachable from any device not
> directly attached to that LAN. Period.
>
> Doing so endangers your peers & the IX itself. It is on the order of
> not implementing BCP38, except
14 matches
Mail list logo
